War Criminal Hypocrite

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ...an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses ~ Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith writing for The Center for Public Integrity, 1/23/2008.

When commenting on other blogs I often, when the topic comes up, refer to George bush (and others in his administration) as "war criminals". The reason I believe the label is applicable is mainly due to his invasion of Iraq and authorization of waterboarding. But lately, on a another site the blogger dmarks (real name Dennis Marks) has been "calling me out" for my "hypocrisy" whenever I do it (use the "war criminal" label when referring to bush and bush administration officials).

According to Mr. Marks, if I were consistent and not a hypocrite, I'd have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton is also a war criminal, because he authorized the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 without UN authorization, which is the "same" thing bush did when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in 2002.

Dennis says the only reason I say bush is a war criminal while Bill Clinton is not is because bush has an "R" behind his name. Of course these accusations are patently absurd due to a few important distinctions between the bombing of Yugoslavia and the invasion of Iraq.

In order to "catch" me in my hypocrisy, Dennis asked me if "George W. Bush [was] lying when he said that Saddam Hussein had been engaged in the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction technology which was a threat to countries in the region and he had made a mockery of the weapons inspection process"?

Turns out this is actually something Nancy Pelosi said, so when I said, "yes, bush lied", Dennis responded with the following...

Dennis Marks: Bush told the truth. We all know this. However, the quote I gave you was a bit of a "sting". It proved two things: your hypocrisy, and that you never bother to check anything. (5/9/2012 AT 8:11am).

So it looks like Dennis got me good, huh? Except that the Nancy Pelosi comment is from 12/16/1998 (when Clinton was president) and actually represents what the politicians believed to be true at the time. Also, Nancy Pelosi did not then conclude that we must go to war with Iraq in order to "disarm" them, and neither did president Clinton.

Also, what Nancy Pelosi said was in line with what United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter reported regarding Iraq's WMD program. In August of 1998 Scott Ritter said that, absent effective monitoring, Iraq could "reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program".

The intent of Pelosi's statement was to keep up the pressure on Iraq and to signal her support for the UN inspections. The Clinton administration was in favor of containment and inspections and not of waging war. And the Clinton administration policy of keeping the pressure on Iraq paid off, because in June of 1999 weapons inspector Scott Ritter said, "when you ask the question, does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons? the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is NO across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed".

In early 2003 The UN weapons inspectors (who had been absent from Iraq for several years) were in the process of verifying if Iraq was in compliance with the UN Resolutions calling for Iraq to disarm. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said the inspectors "found no stockpiles of WMD and had made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament". According to Blix the open issue would be resolved in a matter of months.

Then, on 3/7/2003, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, confirmed that what Scott Ritter said in 1999 was true when he told the UN Security Council that, after his team had done 247 inspections at 147 sites, they found there was no evidence of resumed nuclear activities, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any related sites. He went on to say that evidence suggested Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990 and no longer had a centrifuge program. He concluded that Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997.

So, the question is why - even though it appeared as though Iraq was complying - did bush order "shock and awe" on 3/19/2012 and a ground invasion on 3/20/2003... a mere 12 days after Mohamed ElBaradei said Iraq was complying and no WMD had been found? According to bush the mission was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". How could disarming Iraq be bush's primary reason for toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein when the UN weapons inspectors on the ground were reporting that Iraq was already disarmed?

bush obviously did not "tell the truth". Given what the inspectors ON THE GROUND were saying, bush clearly LIED. So, not only did bush invade Iraq without UN authorization (violating articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter) but he ordered an invasion to "disarm" Iraq when the UN inspectors were telling him Iraq was already disarmed.

This is quite different than what Bill Clinton did when he authorized the use of American troops in a NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999 to stop the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Albanians by nationalist Serbians in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's province of Kosovo. Yes, Bill Clinton bypassed The UN. According to Wikipedia, "the issue was brought before the UN Security Council by Russia, in a draft resolution [that said] 'such unilateral use of force constitutes a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter'. China, Namibia and Russia voted for the resolution, the other members against, thus it failed to pass".

So neither president's war (Clinton/Yugoslavia and bush/Iraq) was authorized by the UN, and, because of this, I think the case can be made that each is a war criminal - if UN authorization is the only criteria used in determining if a war is "legal". Certainly others HAVE argued that Bill Clinton is a war criminal (do a Google search if you don't believe me). But SHOULD each be charged with war crimes? I say "no", because Bill Clinton did obtain the authorization of another international body (NATO), whereas bush went to the UN and argued his case... and the UN specifically said "no". And not only did they say no to the invasion, they also said no to his claim that Iraq was not disarming.

To Clinton the UN did NOT say "no". To bush they did say "no".

Also, while Bill Clinton authorized bombing to stop war crimes, which resulted in the real war criminal (Slobodan Milosevic) being brought to trial, bush authorized an invasion based on a lie. Iraq had no WMD, which the UN weapons inspectors told him BEFORE he invaded. Later, when no weapons were found, bush blamed an "intelligence failure".

I think this explains why the people of Serbia consider President Clinton a hero and erected a statue statue to honor his actions that stopped the brutal Serb forces' crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians, whereas, in Iraq, one Iraqi showed his appreciation for bush's invasion by calling him a "dog" and throwing his shoe at him (which is a sign of contempt in Arab culture). According to Muntadar al-Zaidi, the Iraqi television journalist who threw the shoe bush narrowly ducked, his action was intended as "a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people".

"This is for the widows and orphans and all those killed in Iraq" al-Zaidi shouted as he threw his second shoe. He was referring to the huge number of Iraqis killed since the war began. A peer-reviewed study from the prestigious medical journal The Lancet says approximately 1.4 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Although the 1.4 million figure is an estimate, it is an estimate with a 95 percent confidence interval (Wikipedia: "In statistics, a confidence interval... is used to indicate the reliability of an estimate").

Also, Lila Guterman, writing in a in a January 2005 Columbia Journalism Review article stated, "I called about ten biostatisticians and mortality experts. Not one of them took issue with the study's methods or it's conclusions. If anything, the scientists told me, the authors had been cautious in their estimates".

The blogger who declared me to be a hypocrite says the Lancet's casualty estimates are "pulled from thin air with no evidence", but the real reason he objects is because pointing out how many innocent lives bush's illegal war has cost illustrates how enormous and disgusting a lie his claim that "bush told the truth and saved lives" is.

There is also the failed reconstruction, the primary purpose of which was to enrich the bush administration's contractor buddies. Given the fact that so many of these contractors over billed the government and did shoddy work on top of that, and so few of them were prosecuted - what else can one conclude?

Finally there is the bush administration's violation of the Geneva Conventions. The Third Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of prisoners of war, states that "physical or mental torture [as well as] any other form of coercion" is prohibited. Under the Geneva Conventions torture is defined as a "grave breach" and individuals involved can be prosecuted for war crimes.

Furthermore, during the tribunal that convened following the war in the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court found that these "provisions are considered customary international law, allowing war crimes prosecution by the United Nations and its International Court of Justice over groups that have signed and have not signed the Geneva Conventions.

bush authorized torture by his own admission, although the torture he admits to authorizing is "only" the waterboarding of three individuals. But far more individuals than the three detainees who were waterboarded were subjected to torture. The photographic evidence of the torture that took place at Abu Ghraib is proof of that.

Human Rights Watch says that "Al-Qaeda detainees would likely not be accorded POW status, but the [Geneva] Conventions still provide explicit protections to all persons held in an international armed conflict, even if they are not entitled to POW status. Such protections include the right to be free from coercive interrogation, to receive a fair trial if charged with a criminal offense, and, in the case of detained civilians, to be able to appeal periodically the security rationale for continued detention".

In regards to "detained civilians", bush administration official Lawrence B. Wilkerson (chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell) contended that there are innocent civilians being held (indefinitely) at Gitmo. Mr. Wilkerson said, "there are still innocent people there. Some have been there six or seven years". Gavin Sullivan of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights says "[bush] bears ultimate responsibility for authorizing the torture of thousands of individuals at places like Guantánamo and secret CIA black sites around the world".

The Iraqi people are aware of all of these factors - bush lying about WMD, the large number of deaths from collateral damage and the civil war the invasion unleashed, the human rights abuses at Abu Ghraib and detention of innocent Iraqis, the billions that went to corrupt US companies instead of to Iraqis (who could have rebuild their own infrastructure), and the theft of their oil on behalf of Western oil firms - and this is why they will NEVER erect a statue in bush's honor.

Most recently the blogger who criticizes me said that my "ignorant, personal interpretation of international law [has] crumbled to dust". The straw man he has set up is that the ONLY reason I call bush a war criminal is because he violated the UN Charter by not obtaining UN authorization to invade Iraq, but Clinton did the same, and since I don't agree I'm an ignorant hypocrite.

But, as I've just proven, aside from neither Clinton nor bush receiving UN approval for their military actions, the situations are not at all comparable. And, when Dennis says my case against bush rests "entirely" on the singular fact that bush invaded Iraq without UN authorization, he's lying. I'm not a hypocrite, and bush IS a war criminal, albeit an unprosecuted one.

SWTD #116

GOP Propaganda Campaign Turns Failed Petraeus Iraq Surge Into Success

With the passage of time, President Bush's decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful ~ Peter Wehner, former bush speechwriter (and butt kisser), revising the bush legacy.

You were probably unaware that the Petraeus Iraq surge failed. The reason being that the Con propaganda campaign has largely been a success. Even our President (the current one, not the "courageous" unelected war criminal), has been taken in by the Con disinformation exemplified by the factually inaccurate Peter Wehner quote. Even though he originally criticized the surge, correctly stating, "the surge is not working", now, according to General Petraeus, "President Barack Obama acknowledged that the troop surge in the Iraq war was a success". Sadly this erroneous conclusion was cited "during deliberations over whether to enact a troop surge in Afghanistan".

According to Robert Woodward's book, "The War Within", the decline in violence can be attributed to three factors (none of which is an increase in US troop strength). First, "the Sunni rejection of al-Qaeda extremists in Anbar province". This was the so-called "Sunni Awakening", and it isn't that big of a surprise that they "laid down their arms against coalition forces, patroled neighborhoods, and fought against other Sunni insurgents", since we paid them to do these things (although some of the Sunni militia decided two monthly paychecks were better than one, and "moonlighted" with the insurgency).

The other two factors contributing to the decline in violence, according to Woodward's book, were "the surprise decision of al-Sadr to order a ceasefire", and "the use of new highly classified U.S. intelligence tactics that allowed for rapid targeting and killing of insurgent leaders". (This information is from the 6/29/2010 article "Gen. Petraeus and the Surge Myth by investigative journalist Robert Parry. See also "Iraq War troop surge of 2007: Opposition", on Wikipedia).

There is also the fact that a civil war was fought in Iraq, unlike in Afghanistan. The Shia and Sunni were fighting and killing each other, and so had less resources to devote to fighting and killing American troops. But when then Senator Biden suggested dividing Iraq into a loose federation of three ethnic states, thus quelling the sectarian violence, the bush administration (and Iraq's majority Shia government) rejected a partitioning of the country, deciding to allow the bloodbath to continue. The level of violence went down because the numerically superior Shia (55% of Iraq's population versus 18.5% Sunni) eventually either killed or displaced enough of their enemies to effectively win the war.

More than 1.3 million Iraqis have lost their lives since the start of the war. 4.7 million Iraqis lost or were forced to flee their homes (16% of the population). What portion of each of these estimates can be attributed to the US invasion and what portion can be attributed to the civil war isn't known, as the bushies certainly had no motivation to look into the matter.

The majority Shia government rejected partitioning because they deemed that it was payback time for their former Sunni oppressors. Under Saddam Hussein's Baathist dictatorship, which was Sunni-led, the Shia and Kurds were mercilessly persecuted. The Saddam regime also convinced their fellow Sunnis that they were not a minority - which explains why, when the US sponsored elections resulted in the Sunni netting "only a modest minority of seats", many Sunnis suspected fraud. This suspicion became one of the primary forces that fueled the insurgency. (They also overwhelmingly rejected the new Iraq constitution).

The bush administration knew that a civil war would produce an eventual victor, and then they could claim success when the violence decreased. Which explains why they worked so hard to deny one was taking place. This course of action resulted in a high of 3000 murders per month (according to a 2007 report issued by retired US Army General Barry McCaffre) - but the price was deemed quite acceptable. My opinion is that the bushies believed that if Iraqi ragheads wanted to kill each other there is no reason they should not allow it to happen, especially when the result was to make the war effort appear to be going better than it was.

An article published by "The Economist" on 6/17/2010 reports, "sectarian animosity still prevails", and that "Iraq's fledgling democracy remains frighteningly fragile" due to there being "little sign of a genuine cross-sectarian consensus". Despite these facts victory has been declared in Iraq, news coverage has dropped to virtually nill, and focus has shifted to the other war. The ouster of McChrystal and the installation of Petraeus led John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey CA to remark, "It's kind of sad and ironic that the fall of McChrystal will result in the reaffirmation of a highly problematic strategy".

On Friday 7/2/2010 (a day after General Petraeus won Senate confirmation) the House approved $37 billion in Afghan war spending and a 30,000 troop surge. Both the President and Congress are still fully behind the war, even though a poll in March revealed that "American support for the war in Afghanistan has ebbed to a new low", with "42% of respondents saying the United States made a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan" (Americans who considered the war a mistake was only 6% in January of 2002).

The President, who, on 12/1/2009 explained to the American people that we would give the war one last shot, and then begin a draw down in July 2011 (with a goal of withdrawing most U.S. forces by January 2013), is now walking back that promise, calling people who keep bringing up the draw down date "obsessed", and insisting "his focus is on making sure the mission there is successful".

Translation? The withdraw will be delayed to allow the new commander a chance to achive results. Even though the strategy isn't changing. How many more US soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs, and how many more billions will be wasted (money which could be used here to improve our economy) before Congress pulls funding and forces an end to this debacle? The Karzai government is corrupt. Accepting the results of Afghanistan's last "election" was the final nail in the coffin. If we ever had a chance of successfully completing the mission, any possibility of that happening ended when we allowed the former Unicol (Union Oil Company of California) consultant to steal the Afghan presidency.

The bushies hand picked Hamid Karzai to be Afghanistan's figurehead, installing him so that he could approve the proposed Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (The pipeline will transport Caspian Sea natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and then to India).

Following the 8/20/2009 elections in Afghanistan, former President Jimmy Carter announced, "Hamid Karzai has stolen the election", and that "now the question is whether he gets away with it". (Incidentally, Mr. Carter was also right about the Petraeus Iraq surge, correctly noting that "it wasn't the surge of American troops that had caused an increase in calm, but General David Petraeus' willingness to pay bribes and pay Iraqi soldiers").

There were some brief grumblings from the Obama administration regarding the legitimacy of the Afghan elections, but in the end Karzai was allowed to get away with it. I'm positive that if bush were still in power the election would have been heralded as a victory for democracy and the Afghan people - the same purple-finger nonsense they pulled in Iraq. The Obama Administration, knowing that contesting the election would be very bad for the war effort, stopped it's grumbling, and instead congratulated Karzai on "winning" a second term. President Obama, while visiting the country, told Karzai "Although the process was messy, I'm pleased to say that the final outcome was determined in accordance with Afghan law".

Unfortunately Obama's proclamation was complete baloney. He knows the election was stolen. The American people and the Afghan people also know that Karzai's win was illegitimate (Karzai has been president since being "chosen" as interim president in 2002, served one five year term beginning in 2004, but will be ineligible to run again in 2014 due to term limits). How in the hell can we expect to win Afghan hearts and minds when they see our government give it's blessing to a corrupt administration's theft of it's supposedly democratic election?!

President Karzai (who says the US has undermined his legitimacy with the ballot stuffing allegations, even though they were made by independent monitors) is seeking to make his "own deal with the Taliban and the country's archrival, Pakistan, the Taliban's longtime supporter". A 6/11/2010 story in the New York Times reports that, when presented of evidence that the Taliban were behind a "spectacular rocket attack on a nationwide peace conference earlier this month", president Karzai said "he believed the Taliban were not responsible" and then suggested that Americans were behind the attack.

58% of Americans favor a timetable for withdrawl of US troops. 73% of Afghans opposed the Obama surge (according to a 2009 poll). The Taliban are united in their opposition to our military (unlike, as I pointed out earlier, there being multiple factions fighting each other). And the corrupt Karzai government is seeking to make deals with the Taliban and "blocking corruption probes [regarding the theft of] huge amounts of foreign aid" (a 6/30/2010 Huffington Post article alleges that "Afghan powerbrokers are moving millions of dollars out of the country").

Karzai will use the money he has stolen from the US, the proceeds from the Unicol pipeline (what this war was really all about in the first place), and eventually, the estimated 1 trillion in mineral wealth to create a "coalition government" by bribing the Taliban, cementing the country's status as a criminal and oppressive oligarchy. Foreign corporations will move in to build the pipeline and extract Afghanistan's mineral wealth. The rich will get richer, the corrupt will retain power, and the poor of Afghanistan will remain poor and oppressed. Mission accomplished. BTW, these things will happen regardless of when we pull out.

Continuing on this path is complete insanity. We either need to begin an orderly withdrawal as soon as possible, or come up with a plan for a negotiated peace. This isn't ideal solution, especially with Karazi still in charge for at least another 4 and a half years. I don't think it matters, as this war was lost some time ago (certainly before Obama's surge). That is, if it was ever winnable. Unfortunately, with the Republicans set to gain seats in the upcoming election, the prospect of a draw down anytime soon is looking quite dim.

Further Reading
[1] Petraeus: We Are In This To Win in Afghanistan by Deb Richman, AP 7/4/2010.
[2] Is Karzai punking Obama, yet again? by Laurence Lewis, The Daily Kos 6/11/2010.
[3] Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Bush Oil Team by Wayne Madsen, Democrats.com 1/2002.

7/6/2015 Update: The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart asks "if the surge was so damned successful, then why did it all come apart as soon as we took our finger out of the dike". Answer: gwb (and John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Joe Lieberman and anyone else who claims the surge was a success) were/are lying.

SWTD #44

A Day to Honor Our Veterans

Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy ~ George Bernard Shaw (7/26/1856 to 11/2/1950) Irish socialist, playwright and journalist who examined education, marriage, religion, government, health care and class privilege. Shaw was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938), for his contributions to literature and for his work on the film Pygmalion.

This is my 9/11/2009 Veterans Day post, presented two days late. I started writing it on Veterans Day, but did not finish because other things came up. Hopefully my thoughts regarding what they perceive to be honoring our soldiers will outrage the Righties and I'll receive some crazy wing-nut insults. I'm not under any illusions that I could actually change any of their minds by pointing out how they are wrong. The propaganda has been so successful that you've got to laugh. Or be horrified.

I decided to post on this topic after visiting the Truth Shall Rule site on Wednesday. Even though the topic of Truth's post was not Veteran's day, but instead a hilarious commentary on ghostwritten autobiography hawking Right-Wing bimbos Sarah Palin and Carrie Prejean, a couple of jingoistic war-crimes-excusing Righties showed up and proceeded to attack Truth for being "totally without gratitude or respect for our fighting men and women", and everyone else on the left for "hating the folks in the military as does President Obama".

This reminded of a Memorial Day discussion I participated in six months ago on a wing-nut blog. "Memorial Day should be a day where politics has no place" - so stated one of the commenters. This was after I posted my thoughts, so I don't know if the person was referring to me, the blog proprietor, or the other commenters.

Gayle, the blog proprietor, after sharing her thoughts on Memorial Day, got on with the real purpose of her post, which was to bash our president. She asserted that President Obama did not honor our troops because he "cut the budget on the next generation of weapons development".

Of course the Righties equate "honoring our soldiers" with handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to defense contractors for wasteful and unneeded military weaponry like "ground-based interceptors", "laser planes", "amphibious ships" and "future combat ground-vehicles". The Laser Plane may be unfeasible and unaffordable, but it certainly wouldn't have been unprofitable. It is a question of priorities, military contractor profits trump providing things our soldiers really need.

Remember that under bush our soldiers had to pay for their own body armor and scrounge in trash heaps for metal to armor their vehicles. Donald Rumsfeld's response for the bush administration's poor planning? "you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time".

I also pointed out that the bush administration...

...awarded no bid Iraq war contracts to VP Dick Cheney's former company, Halliburton, who provided our soldiers with tainted water and rotten food, exposed them to toxins, and electrocuted them while they were showering - due to shoddy wiring (for which KBR received 83.4 million in bonuses).

...did not see to it that our returning soldiers received adequate health care at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Even though cases of outpatient neglect were reported as early as 2004, nothing was done until the Washington Post broke the story in 2007.

...had no plan to reintegrate returning soldiers, many who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, resulting in an explosion of homeless vets and suicide rates. According to a December 2008 article from CNN, "the rate of suicides among-active duty soldiers is on pace to surpass both last year's numbers and the rate of suicide in the general U.S. population for the first time since the Vietnam war, according to U.S. Army officials".

...expanded use of the military's "stop-loss" policy, under which a soldier's active duty service was involuntarily extended in order to retain them beyond their initial end of term of service date (ETS). According to Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org, "The stop-loss policy is one that has been expanded and abused". This policy has been referred to as a "backdoor draft".

I concluded by stating... I find it incomprehensible that Republicans continue to wrap themselves in the flag considering the absolutely disgraceful job the previous administration did "honoring" our soldiers, *puke*. IMO anyone who voted for GWB should be deeply ashamed of how our soldiers were treated on his watch.

What these examples (this is not a complete listing of all the ways in which the bush administration dishonored our soldiers) prove is that GWB and company did not care at all for our solders, they were a tool he used to gain "political capital" - and shovel taxpayer money to his campaign donors in the form of no-bid Iraq contracts (which directly benefited VP Cheney, whose Halliburton stock increased by over 3000 percent in one year!).

A blogger going by the handle of Old Soldier scolded me by decrying, "dervish, you're an ass! Do you care not even one iota for those who gave their life for your freedom? I find your obsession with continuing to slam GWB, and this time by indicating he essentially abused and totally disregarded the wellbeing of our military, to be over the top. I also find your timing to be absolutely despicable and in total disregard for the meaning of Decoration Day".

Even though "Old Soldier" had previously written "Great post, Gayle. Freedom is not free... blah blah blah... BHO would do them the most honor by simply being quiet for the day". So I guess it is OK to attack Democrats on a day set aside to honor our soldiers, but pointing out how they were mistreated under the last president's watch is "despicable". A day where politics has no place? Clearly the Righties agree those on the left should shut their yaps, but they should be free to denigrate our Democratic President ad nauseam.

Well, I certainly have no intention of keeping quiet while they use these holidays to bash the left while wrapping themselves in the flag.

How about directing some of that outrage towards Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who is currently holding up passage of the "Veterans' Caregiver and Omnibus Health Benefits Act". Coburn claims his issue with the bill is it's cost, but I would argue that the money is already spent. If we send our soldiers to war surely we are obligated to pay for their health care when they return.

Representative Coburn assumed office in 2005, so he didn't have the opportunity to vote for or against the 9/14/2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which was the justification used for the invasion of Afghanistan (although no House Republican voted against it), or the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, although he has stated that he is a "strong supporter of Bush in removing Saddam", and that "going to Iraq was exactly the right thing...". He has also voted "no" on a number of resolutions which would have set a timetable for an Iraq drawn down.

So, providing health care for our wounded veterans is to expensive, but saving billions by establishing a special Senate committee to investigate allegations of waste, fraud and war profiteering gets a thumbs down? This guy's logic makes no sense. I smell a fraud. He's a jackass, not a fiscal conservative.

Oddly enough, both house of Congress unanimously passed the bill which cancelled development of the laser plane. That must have been a difficult vote. On one hand Republican defense contractor cronies love wasteful military boondoggles like the laser plane, but on the other hand the cons have to maintain the deception that they're fiscally conservative. You win some, you lose some, I guess. But even when they lose it's a win. I pointed out that no Republicans voted to keep the laser plane, so how could anyone claim it was President Obama's fault that our troops would now be stuck with outdated equipment?

I received no response except continued wing-nut assertions that President Obama was "gutting" the military. Even though the bill approved by the President is "larger than any budget that the Bush administration ever proposed by about 20 billion dollars". And defense contractor stock increased by 3.4% when the budget proposal was released. A win for everyone, apparently. Except for those of use who honestly believe slashing the military budget would be a good idea.

Update 9/26/2014: The blog mentioned in the post above "Gayle's Cyber Place" has been scrubbed of all it's political content. There is but one non-political post remaining. This happened, I believe, some time ago. Gayle, as I recall, retired from political blogging. This is why the discussion referenced above no longer exists on Gayle's blog and, if you click one of my links they will go nowhere. The same goes for my link to the blog "Truth Shall Rule", the now-shuttered blog of Joe Kelly (AKA "Truth 101", AKA Joe Truth).

SWTD #29